The recent wave of mini-desktops leads us to reconsider one of our favorites.

We've been covering quite a few mini PCs lately, and there's one that always comes up in the comments: Apple's Mac Mini. Apple started selling tiny desktops with this name in 2005, and it's been the cheapest way to buy a Mac ever since. It's also nearly the only Mac that Apple didn't update in 2013.

Apple hasn't updated the design of the Mini since 2010, when it introduced the aluminum unibody design the computer still uses today. It measures 7.7 inches squared and is 1.4 inches high, which is still pretty small by desktop standards but positively huge compared to computers like the Intel NUC (4.4 by 4.6 by 1.4 inches) or Gigabyte Brix Pro (4.5 by 4.4 by 2.4 inches). The presence of faster, more tightly integrated chips makes it easier to cram even more performance into even less space than was possible just a few years ago. The next Mac Mini we see may well be even smaller than before.

But just because things can get smaller doesn't always mean that they should. We have no idea when or even if Apple is planning to refresh the Mac Mini, or what that refresh will look like when it comes. But we can look at wider trends in the PC industry, at advances in CPUs and other system components, and at what Apple is doing with its other Macs to make a case for (and against) a mini-er Mac Mini.

Shrinking the Mini

Enlarge/ Imagine one of these in unibody aluminum with an Apple logo on top, and you come pretty close to what a next-generation Mac Mini could look like.

Andrew Cunningham

Those first aluminum unibody Minis had to make room for a few components that either have gone or are going out of vogue. It ditched its slot-loading optical drive in the mid-2011 model, and 2.5-inch spinning hard drives are slowly receding not just from Apple's Macs, but from all high-end PCs everywhere. Leaving out components like this is part of why NUC-like systems can get so tiny—there's no optical drive, and the smallest models omit any kind of 2.5-inch drive bay in favor of thin SSDs on small cards, like the ones you'd find in a laptop.

Apple could save a substantial amount of space by switching to these smaller drives, and it already has in almost all of its other Macs. The MacBook Air, Retina MacBook Pro, and Mac Pro have all switched to PCI Express-based SSD cards, and they're available in the 2013 iMac either as a standalone option or alongside a larger hard drive in a Fusion Drive configuration. In fact, even if the Mac Mini stays the same size, we wouldn't be surprised if it picked up a PCIe slot to accommodate these kinds of SSD cards, since the current Mac Mini's 2.5-inch SSDs only come in slower SATA III variants.

Other hardware has progressed quite a bit too. Some versions of Intel's Haswell chips integrate the system chipset on to the same package as the CPU, saving space on the motherboard and allowing for less complicated cooling fans. If the Mini skips a generation of Intel CPUs, the next-generation Broadwell chips are sure to continue to expand on this trend. Currently, the only chips with integrated chipsets are dual-core chips intended for Ultrabooks and high-end tablets, and Apple's current Mac Minis use standard dual- and quad-core laptop chips with separate chipsets. As we see in the NUC, though, the Ultrabook parts have improved enough in performance that they could conceivably deliver decent desktop performance. Even fully fledged quad-core desktop chips like the Core i7-4770R can fit in a Mac Mini-esque chassis—you wouldn't necessarily have to sacrifice performance to make the computer smaller.

The last reason why Apple might go for a smaller Mac Mini? The company likes to make its desktops smaller and more streamlined, even if it comes at the cost of features some of its customers like. We saw it first with the 21.5-inch 2012 iMac, which used a slower hard drive and removed its user-accessible RAM slots in the name of thinness. It happened again with the 2013 Mac Pro, which is still an incredibly powerful workstation but has given up most of its internal expandability to fit in its new case. A new, smaller Mac Mini would probably still be a decent computer, but Apple is all about the PC-as-an-appliance. The current Mac Mini has user-accessible RAM and two drive bays, but that's no guarantee that the next one will.

Maintaining the status quo

Enlarge/ The Mac Mini's internal power supply is one reason why it's as big as it is.

There's certainly room for the Mini to get smaller, but Apple has a few compelling reasons to keep the Mini just the size it is.

First and foremost is the current model's integrated power supply. Pre-2010 Mac Minis came with a power brick that was maybe a third of the size of the system it powered, and both the NUC and the Brix Pro are as small as they are because they include their own sizable power bricks. To make the computer part of a Mac Mini smaller than the current one is wouldn't be difficult; to make one with an integrated power supply significantly smaller is more difficult. It's not a gigantic component, but it takes up space and generates heat that would both need to be accounted for.

There's a chance Apple could ignore this and release a mini-er Mini that goes back to an external power supply. This isn't usually how Apple works, though—moving the power supply into the Mac Mini's chassis was presumably done for a reason, and when Apple makes design decisions like this, it doesn't usually reverse them. All three of the company's desktops completely eschew external power bricks and have for years. That's not likely to change.

Enlarge/ These mini-desktops have smaller footprints than the Mac Mini, but the external power bricks add to their overall volume.

Andrew Cunningham

The next consideration has to do with the way the Mac Mini is positioned. Apple killed its Xserve rack-mounted server back in 2011, and the special "Mac Pro Server" configuration died with the old gigantic chassis. In lieu of those offerings, Apple will sell you a Mac Mini Server for $999 that includes a quad-core CPU instead of a dual-core one and a second hard drive installed in the computer's second drive bay. Setting these drives up in a mirrored RAID configuration provides some basic data redundancy that should really be considered a bare minimum for a server product.

Apple's server software can really run on any Mac, so strictly speaking there's no need for a dedicated server product. But the Mac Mini Server (a consumer computer modified to be better-suited to server-y tasks) really seems to be made to run OS X Server (a consumer operating system modified to be better-suited to server-y tasks). Apple has given up on the enterprise server market, but offering a computer that's meant to be a server fills an important niche in its lineup, both for iOS and OS X-centric small businesses and Windows-centric IT shops that need to be able to manage a few iPhones or Macs. A smaller Mac Mini that couldn't offer the same features wouldn't be as good of a fit, and the way Apple manages its supply chain means it will probably want to stick to using one chassis for every possible Mini. Building a separate enclosure just for the Mac Mini Server isn't likely to happen.

Our final argument in favor of the Mini staying the way it is: the computer just doesn't get all that much attention from Apple. The company doesn't usually break out sales of specific models, but we already know that iPhones and iPads outsell Macs by a huge margin, and we can safely assume that Mac laptops outsell Mac desktops since we know that to be the case in the wider PC industry. It took five years for the Mini to get its first significant redesign, whereas most Macs are redesigned every three to four years. The Mini just isn't a big enough revenue generator to merit a ton of Apple's attention, and we think the company would take an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach to the current design when adding Haswell or Broadwell CPUs.

Like so much speculation about Apple's future plans, take all of this with a grain of salt—we don't know anything about a new Mac Mini that you don't know, so the best we can do is use Apple's past behavior to predict its future behavior. If you want (or don't want) a smaller Mac Mini, duke it out in the comments below and we'll run a follow-up with your thoughts in a few days.

Andrew Cunningham
Andrew has a B.A. in Classics from Kenyon College and has over five years of experience in IT. His work has appeared on Charge Shot!!! and AnandTech, and he records a weekly book podcast called Overdue. Twitter@AndrewWrites

147 Reader Comments

If there is a market for smaller devices, Apple would be foolish not to pursue it.Also, when it comes to the economics of materials, think about it: they will be using less metal/materials to build those machines while maintaining decent sales/profits. It is a win-win situation for Apple to keep reducing the size of those machines.

I think Apple wants to move towards something like the AppleTV shape. They could shrink it a fair chunk now that they don't need the optical, and the PSU could also shrink with the lower-power chips available.

I bought my first Mac over 20 years ago (an LC) and have remained with Apple kit since.

Without doubt the mini has been my favourite machine. They're silent and utterly reliable; I've never lost any productivity due to a hardware issue, take up minimal lab space and are powerful enough to run the software I need. Great little systems.

Would I buy a smaller system? Sure. It's hard to see what could be trimmed; a couple of the USB ports and the SD slot perhaps, probably the FW800 too.

If there is a market for smaller devices, Apple would be foolish not to pursue it..

It's called an IPhone

I kid, kind of. I cannot help but wonder if the reason that the Mac Mini receives so little love is because powerful smart phones could potentially replace this class of desktop computing in the near future. All that's really missing is a video out on those devices.

I don't really care about a smaller Mac Mini. I've convinced my GF that OSX is the way to go but I keep telling her to hold off because a refresh is coming soon. She has cash to drop and is desperate.It'll only sit under her TV and be used for surfing and movies.

Lose the HDD, better graphics and more RAM is all I want. Keep the case as it is.

I think Apple wants to move towards something like the AppleTV shape. They could shrink it a fair chunk now that they don't need the optical, and the PSU could also shrink with the lower-power chips available.

ARM powered mac mini in the AppleTV form factor? Crazier rumors have been credible Marklar on ARM has to be knocking around somewhere right?

I'm not so much concerned about the power-brick in terms of volume; if they're tethered to a wall, the difference of a few inches is negligible. If they were more mobile, the size argument would be a little more interesting.

I have a current-gen Mac mini attached to my TV. The form factor is great, but it idles warmer than I think it should and the fans rev up too often. If they make any changes to the mini (other than the obvious CPU upgrade) I hope they focus on power and heat management.

Are there people clamoring for a smaller Mac Mini? I mean it might be bigger than some newer entries but even they take up space which doesn't seem like that much regardless of them vs. the mini. I suppose smaller is better as long as it doesn't have heat issues and the power supply remains internal.

Power bricks wouldn't be a problem if the industry invested in creating a centralized, standardized home DC network. That, or proper wireless charging.

There are many issues with a "DC network" which is why there were abandoned. Lack of standard is not the main barrier.

DC has a heavy energy loss, and needs different security against shorts and errors. And it is more sensitive to problems like people screwing up when they replace a socket/cable, or a device acting up due to fried circuits.

Also there is no elegant way to convert power in a large scale (to ensure sufficient capacity and prevent over-drawing power) unless you use classic iron core transformers. And nobody wants do do that because the power loss on those buggers is too high.

Finally, the complexity of such a network makes it an installation and maintenance nightmare. Low power devices don't need the same voltage and one size doesn't fit all. Some devices really need 19,6 volts, and others really need 3,3. It's not just a matter of "redesigning" these things into using some sort of common ground at 7,5 or 9 volts. That's not how electronics work.

If there is a market for smaller devices, Apple would be foolish not to pursue it.Also, when it comes to the economics of materials, think about it: they will be using less metal/materials to build those machines while maintaining decent sales/profits. It is a win-win situation for Apple to keep reducing the size of those machines.

I don't think reducing the size of the mac mini would result in any increased sales. A mac mini can be VESA mounted (via third party brackets) just like these other products, which would be the primary reason for going smaller, and the internal power supply is a huge benefit. Even the NUC and Brix have introduced larger models to offer greater expansion. Once you get down to a certain size, there aren't many benefits in going smaller. The smaller desktop won't offer any different uses from the slightly larger desktop. That said, Apple does like to shrink things, so the mac mini will probably get smaller at some point. I just wouldn't expect such a change to become a primary driver of sales.

I bought my first Mac over 20 years ago (an LC) and have remained with Apple kit since.

Without doubt the mini has been my favourite machine. They're silent and utterly reliable; I've never lost any productivity due to a hardware issue, take up minimal lab space and are powerful enough to run the software I need. Great little systems.

Would I buy a smaller system? Sure. It's hard to see what could be trimmed; a couple of the USB ports and the SD slot perhaps, probably the FW800 too.

I absolutely love my Mac mini. I sold my 2006 Mac Pro clearing off acres on my desk and replaced it with this little fireball last year.

I upgraded the cpu to the server i7 8 thread, upped the ram to 16gb and threw in a fusion drive for good measure. It handles everything I can throw at it and believe me I max it out.

It's the heart of my plex server which is constantly encoding and transcoding video, also have a newznab server running as well as sabnzb sick beard and I can still play around Photoshop and Xcode. I never thought I would give up on the Mac Pro line but now it's simply overkill when the Mac mini offers so much.

I don't really want a smaller box, what I want is a desktop i7 and a real gpu. Probably won't happen but one can dream.

The mac mini is small enough already, and I would like to see apple pursue higher performance and upgradability rather than shrinking the size factor.

That said, like you pointed out in the article, apple often makes things smaller just because they can, and they are willing to sacrifice performance and upgradability to do so. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a NUC-sized mac mini when broadwell releases.

I think either of the two things are going to happen this year: we will either see a Mac mini shaped like a Apple TV, which should be possible with Haswell or we will see a much more powerful version in the shape of the Mac Pro. Personally I think the last option is the more likely way to go. Ditch all the Workstation components and one graphic card and you get a very powerful, yet small Mac.

The lack of any update suggest that they are planning on a more substantial upgrade. The logical step for Apple would have been a Core i5 or i7 Haswell with Iris Pro but they opted not to update the system. I guess they are planning a major overhaul. If I am correct with my assessment and seeing how the supply on the Mac Pro is pretty much constrained we have a clear reason why the Mac mini hasn't been updated yet.

Why does it even need to be a desktop? We've already seen with 8" Bay Trail Tablets that you can get some pretty good performance. Apple could easily go down the Surface Pro route and people would eat that shit up.

I absolutely love my Mac mini. I sold my 2006 Mac Pro clearing off acres on my desk and replaced it with this little fireball last year.

I upgraded the cpu to the server i7 8 thread, upped the ram to 16gb and threw in a fusion drive for good measure. It handles everything I can throw at it and believe me I max it out.

It's the heart of my plex server which is constantly encoding and transcoding video, also have a newznab server running as well as sabnzb sick beard and I can still play around Photoshop and Xcode. I never thought I would give up on the Mac Pro line but now it's simply overkill when the Mac mini offers so much.

I don't really want a smaller box, what I want is a desktop i7 and a real gpu. Probably won't happen but one can dream.

The new pro seems to be designed with customers exactly like you in mind?

I think it's pretty much inevitable. While there was indeed a change in the socket design that could explain why there was no Haswell launch, my reasoning is that there has been a delay in getting out the Haswell model is because the industrial design team has been stuck working on the Mac Pro - hence the delay in getting out the revised Mac Mini. A simple socket change doesn't take that long to do - just see how quickly they moved from Nehalem to Sandy Bridge, for instance.

As for power adapter size - if they went with something roughly the size of the "H"-SKU NUCs, there would be enough space to fit something the size of the 45W Macbook power adapter under the footprint of the NUC-sized Mini. That'd be enough for a relatively-lower powered set of components, and Apple would happily do it.

The mac mini is small enough already, and I would like to see apple pursue higher performance and upgradability rather than shrinking the size factor.

That said, like you pointed out in the article, apple often makes things smaller just because they can, and they are willing to sacrifice performance and upgradability to do so. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a NUC-sized mac mini when broadwell releases.

Thiiis. That size with the ability to easily upgrade would be gold.

Just look at the iMacs. Very thin and beatifully curved, but all that is on the backside of an AIO, so it doesn't exactly matter. Make them a bit thicker and cram them with proper high end hardware. Dual socket iMac for the people.

The new tablet is actually a little heavier and infinitesimally thicker than its predecessor—it doesn't gain as much weight as the full-size iPad did when it first got its Retina display, but it does go against Apple's ever-thinner-ever-lighter design trend. The new tablet is 0.29 inches thick (up from 0.28) and weighs 0.73 pounds (up from 0.68; the LTE model weighs 0.75 pounds, up from 0.69).

I absolutely love my Mac mini. I sold my 2006 Mac Pro clearing off acres on my desk and replaced it with this little fireball last year.

I upgraded the cpu to the server i7 8 thread, upped the ram to 16gb and threw in a fusion drive for good measure. It handles everything I can throw at it and believe me I max it out.

It's the heart of my plex server which is constantly encoding and transcoding video, also have a newznab server running as well as sabnzb sick beard and I can still play around Photoshop and Xcode. I never thought I would give up on the Mac Pro line but now it's simply overkill when the Mac mini offers so much.

I don't really want a smaller box, what I want is a desktop i7 and a real gpu. Probably won't happen but one can dream.

Totally agree. Also the current form of the Mac mini makes it the most user customizable of any of Apple's current offerings, except maybe the new Mac Pro. I so want to get a Mac mini, hook it up to a HD TV, install a SSD in one slot and a large HDD in the other. Run the SSD as the boot drive with OS and put all the media files on the large HDD. It would be my perfect Mac setup. The only way Apple could improve the Mini in my opinion is to outfit it with a real GPU as you said. Form factor is great! Power supply and guts all in one neat package with room enough for 2 HDD! I miss Front Row (the Apple TV like interface that you operated with the remote). If they brought Front Row back it would be the perfect living room computer!

Oh please no. We don't need a smaller Mac. The Mini is the only somewhat customizable Mac, it can take two standard 2.5" hard drives. It's the only Mac I would ever buy if it has a more powerful processor.

I think they can make it smaller without ditching the internal power supply. Look at the Retina MacBook Pro which has a smaller one and far more power draw (faster processor/GPU/battery charger/display).

I'm not so much concerned about the power-brick in terms of volume; if they're tethered to a wall, the difference of a few inches is negligible. If they were more mobile, the size argument would be a little more interesting.

Some people do travel with a Mac Mini.... I owned an older one with a big power supply and did it all the time. The huge (and heavy!) power supply sucked.

Why does it even need to be a desktop? We've already seen with 8" Bay Trail Tablets that you can get some pretty good performance. Apple could easily go down the Surface Pro route and people would eat that shit up.

Why does it even need to be a desktop? We've already seen with 8" Bay Trail Tablets that you can get some pretty good performance. Apple could easily go down the Surface Pro route and people would eat that shit up.

Because tablets and desktops have different uses?

Not to mention why would Apple make another tablet when they have the iPad?

I'd be worried about heat, even with an external power supply. I had a Dell rep tell me unequivocally that in their experience with otherwise comparable desktops, the smaller the case, the shorter the life of the PC. They blame it on heat and ventilation issues in the smaller cases, which makes perfect sense to me even on small form factors with external power supplies. Processors generate a lot of heat, and it seems logical that all that heat would affect the life of the other components. For now, I'm sticking with conventional desktop towers everywhere space is not an issue.

Once you get down to a certain size, there aren't many benefits in going smaller. The smaller desktop won't offer any different uses from the slightly larger desktop. That said, Apple does like to shrink things, so the mac mini will probably get smaller at some point. I just wouldn't expect such a change to become a primary driver of sales.

I think the only motivation Tim Cook would need is to reduce the size of the packaging, which would reduce carbon emissions during freight.

Apple mentions this issue almost every time they make a product smaller. Whether it's an iPod or Mac Pro, and the Mac Mini is their most environmentally friendly mac (it's all over the product description).

When they can make it smaller without sacrificing anything, they will do it.